Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree

From: Peter Zijlstra <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 22:51:51 +0100

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 04:39:45PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
> > As a side note, at minimum the semantic and compatibility difference
> > needs to be _very_ clearly present in the naming. Something like
> > mwait_old_() or mwait_core2_(). That way such dependencies and
> > assumptions don't get lost in code restructuring, etc.
> 
> Agreed.
> We started with mwait_idle() -- which was erroneously removed
> and is now being restored under it original name.
> 
> The "new" function is mwait_idle_with_hints() -- which uses
> the additional hints that were not available w/ the original MWAIT instruction.
> Where "new" is Core Duo and later -- all the processor that can use
> MWAIT for C-states deeper than C1.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain what's wrong with:

static inline void mwait_idle(void)
{
	local_irq_enable();
	mwait_idle_with_hints(0, 0);
}